---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 03/29/04: 7 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 06:52 AM - Tail sections building question (At7000ft@aol.com) 2. 08:29 AM - Re: Tail sections building question (Gadd, Skip) 3. 11:16 AM - Re: Tail sections building question (walt evans) 4. 11:31 AM - Picky questions (Hodgson, Mark O) 5. 12:41 PM - Re: Picky questions (At7000ft@aol.com) 6. 05:13 PM - From www.eaa.org (Richard Navratil) 7. 10:13 PM - picy questions (Clif Dawson) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 06:52:35 AM PST US From: At7000ft@aol.com Subject: Pietenpol-List: Tail sections building question From all the tail section pictures I have seen and going through the archives it doesn't look like many people build their elevators and rudders with the 'trailing edge' specified in the plans. Looks like the 'leading edge' profile is used on the 3 outside edges and 'main bean' used where the hinges go. Looks like an easier way to do it anyhow. Am I wrong here? RickH ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 08:29:03 AM PST US From: "Gadd, Skip" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Tail sections building question I did mine per the plans. If I were to do another I would make the side edges just as a rectangle (not T shaped) than after gluing up would use 3/8 X 3/16 balsa pieces between the gussets to make the T shape. Skip From all the tail section pictures I have seen and going through the archives it doesn't look like many people build their elevators and rudders with the 'trailing edge' specified in the plans. Looks like the 'leading edge' profile is used on the 3 outside edges and 'main bean' used where the hinges go. Looks like an easier way to do it anyhow. Am I wrong here? RickH Message I did mine per the plans. If I were to do another I would make the side edges just as a rectangle (not T shaped) than after gluing up would use 3/8 X 3/16 balsa pieces between the gussets to make the T shape. Skip From all the tail section pictures I have seen and going through the archives it doesn't look like many people build their elevators and rudders with the 'trailing edge' specified in the plans. Looks like the 'leading edge' profile is used on the 3 outside edges and 'main bean' used where the hinges go. Looks like an easier way to do it anyhow. Am I wrong here? RickH ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 11:16:19 AM PST US From: "walt evans" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Tail sections building question Rick, I did mine per plans. Usually the trailing edge would be assembled and glued without the rounded taper shape for ease of handling. I finished mine then shaped it with a small plane (no pun) walt evans NX140DL ----- Original Message ----- From: At7000ft@aol.com To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:52 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Tail sections building question From all the tail section pictures I have seen and going through the archives it doesn't look like many people build their elevators and rudders with the 'trailing edge' specified in the plans. Looks like the 'leading edge' profile is used on the 3 outside edges and 'main bean' used where the hinges go. Looks like an easier way to do it anyhow. Am I wrong here? RickH ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 11:31:05 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Picky questions From: "Hodgson, Mark O" --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Hodgson, Mark O" Kudos to Dick Navratil for the POH--you could have made some money on it, you know! After a long period of procrastination or analysis (depending on one's perspective) I'm actually beginning to bend capstrips and build the wing rib jig, and I hope to have the ribs complete and be working on the tailfeathers by Brodhead. OK, so I'm shooting to have the plane flying by the centennial in 2029. I did find the list archive really useful for preparation. I was originally going to rubber-cement the wing rib drawing to the jig and work from there, so I copied it on vellum to save the good copy for further reference. The Kopy Kop version turned out to be so off-scale that it is unusable (except for giving me the curve for the bending jig). So I wound up transferring the exact dimensions to the jig. But as I was measuring off the contour points on the jig this weekend, and in spite of the archive research, I found some pickable gnits. I'm seeking some list wisdom here: 1) Are there upright braces inboard of the spars per the full scale wing rib drawing, or not, per the Flying and Glider Manual, the Pietenpol Manual, and the general plans? 2) The general plans and the full scale wing rib drawing show a rear brace descending aft of the spar, but the F & G Manual and the P. Manual show otherwise, with a comment in the P. Manual saying to do it that way. General plans were drawn in 1934, F & G Manual is 1932, P. Manual is post-60's because of Corvair stuff, no date on the full-scale wing rib drawing (but Don's initials are on it, not his dad's). Which way is right? My intuition is going with the brace descending aft of the spar (better to handle compression from lift?), but I'm no engineer. The following I wouldn't mention to the list, except that now that I've started I'll bring them up for any comments--since I'm just starting I want to do things right, and it will give me a good gauge for how to handle these things when the inevitable discrepancies pop up. Some things really, really matter, like C.G. location, some don't, like whether you use mahogany or birch plywood, and I'm just trying to get a sense of it all. 3) F & G Manual points out error on a 6" measure on top of wing which is supposed to be 6 1/8"; however, all drawings show 6". P. Manual applies to Sky Scout wing but says that it's identical to Air Camper. Hard to believe that this 1/8" really matters, especially where it's located on the wing (well aft of leading edge)--or does it? 4) There's no height from the baseline to the bottom of the leading edge on the first (1/2") increment aft of leading edge. I'm going to ignore it, assuming that the cap strip will bend appropriately there. Is that OK? 5) On F & G Manual and P. Manual, after seven consecutive 1" increments aft of leading edge, there are three 11/2" increments; on the plans, the first of these is 1 1/8 rather than 1 1/2. I did it the plans way. Correct? 6) I am assuming that I can just measure and replicate the brace dimensions from the full-scale drawing and that being super exact about their location isn't that important (except for the ones adjacent to spars). Correct? Mark Hodgson ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 12:41:31 PM PST US From: At7000ft@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Picky questions --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: At7000ft@aol.com Mark I am about 2 months ahead of you (just finished my ribs yesterday) and have had all these same questions (and many more). I am an engineer and usually expect fairly exact specifications before I build something (especially something that I have never built before and can kill me). But that is something that you will not get with a Pietenpol. But the good news is that is doesn't seem to matter much. Builders are always commenting on how everyone seems to build it differently. I assume the main reason for this is because of the ambiguities in the plans and the differences in the different plan sets available (which is your current concern). Most sane people would question proceeding with such a project when plans are available for other aircraft which are exact, unambiguous, some full size, etc. And I would have moved on to a different project if it wasn't for the fact that hundreds of these things have been built over the years and I have yet to hear of an accident caused because of the Pietenpol design, even though their is no one Pietenpol design since no two Piets are the same, (although at a distance to the untrained eye they all look about the same). Hell somebody even made a Piet biplane! Concerning your rib jig, yes the full size rib plan is different than the rib spec on the 32 plans (the spars are not even the correct distance apart). As several on this group recommended throw the full-size plans in the trash and loft the points from the 32 plans. Something else that worked well was to cover the rib plan with a piece of clear plexiglass (I got a piece from a cheap Walmart picture frame and cut it in half length-wise). RickH > Kudos to Dick Navratil for the POH--you could have made some money on > it, you know! > > After a long period of procrastination or analysis (depending on one's > perspective) I'm actually beginning to bend capstrips and build the wing > rib jig, and I hope to have the ribs complete and be working on the > tailfeathers by Brodhead. OK, so I'm shooting to have the plane flying > by the centennial in 2029. I did find the list archive really useful > for preparation. > > I was originally going to rubber-cement the wing rib drawing to the jig > and work from there, so I copied it on vellum to save the good copy for > further reference. The Kopy Kop version turned out to be so off-scale > that it is unusable (except for giving me the curve for the bending > jig). So I wound up transferring the exact dimensions to the jig. But > as I was measuring off the contour points on the jig this weekend, and > in spite of the archive research, I found some pickable > gnits. I'm > seeking some list wisdom here: ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 05:13:58 PM PST US From: "Richard Navratil" Subject: Pietenpol-List: From www.eaa.org The article below has further information on progress on the Sport Pilot Rating. Dick N. http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/040325_sp.html ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 10:13:29 PM PST US From: Clif Dawson Subject: Pietenpol-List: picy questions One thing to watch is the direction of that last diagonal just before the trailing edge, the realy long one. In the Aircamper article, F+G #32 it goes from bottom at rear spar upwards to the last upright. Bernard corrected this in the Scout article in F+G #33, reversing it as he found they were prone to breaking. Use the later version. As for the discrepancy in the hieght of that 6" to 6 1/8" station I simply faired the curve through that area. Clif PS, What do you call a pregnant stewardess? Pilot error.